alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IIA 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 22 

Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of the United States 

posthumously. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2005 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced 

the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proclaiming Casimir Pulaski to be an honorary citizen of 

the United States posthumously. 

Whereas Casimir Pulaski was a Polish military officer who 

fought on the side of America against the British in the 

American Revolutionary War; 

Whereas Benjamin Franklin recommended that General 

George Washington accept Casimir Pulaski as a volunteer in the American Cavalry and said that Pulaski was 

‘‘renowned throughout Europe for the courage and bravery he displayed in defense of his country’s freedom’’; 

Whereas after arriving in America, Casimir Pulaski wrote 

these words to General Washington, ‘‘I came here, where 

freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die 

for it’’; 
2 

•SJ 22 IS

Whereas the first military engagement of Casimir Pulaski 

with the British was on September 11, 1777, at the Battle of Brandywine, and his courageous charge in this engagement averted a disastrous defeat of the American 

Cavalry and saved the life of George Washington; 

Whereas on September 15, 1777, George Washington elevated Casimir Pulaski to the rank of Brigadier General 

of the American Cavalry; 

Whereas Casimir Pulaski formed the Pulaski Cavalry Legion, 

and in February 1779, this legion ejected the British occupiers from Charleston, South Carolina; 

Whereas in October 1779, Casimir Pulaski mounted an assault against British forces in Savannah, Georgia; 

Whereas on the morning of October 9, 1779, Casimir Pulaski 

was mortally wounded and was taken aboard the American ship USS Wasp, where he died at sea on October 

11, 1779; 

Whereas before the end of 1779, the Continental Congress 

resolved that a monument should be erected in honor of 

Casimir Pulaski; 

Whereas in 1825, General Lafayette laid the cornerstone for 

the Casimir Pulaski monument in Savannah, Georgia; 

and 

Whereas in 1929, Congress passed a resolution recognizing 

October 11 of each year as Pulaski Day in the United 

States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
3 

•SJ 22 IS

1 That Casimir Pulaski is proclaimed to be an honorary cit2 izen of the United States posthumously. 

Æ
# Official Journal C 253A/19 O

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 253A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4919 October 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 253A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4919 October 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Notices |
| | European Parliament |
| 2006/C 253A/1 | Recruitment Notice PE/100/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Committees and multilateral bodies | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Notices

European Parliament

2006/C 253A/1

Recruitment Notice PE/100/S — Director (Function group AD14) — Committees and multilateral bodies

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Case: 2:12-cv-00706-EAS-EPD Doc #: 36 Filed: 04/25/14 Page: 1 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00706-EAS-EPD Doc #: 36 Filed: 04/25/14 Page: 2 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00706-EAS-EPD Doc #: 36 Filed: 04/25/14 Page: 3 of 3  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T12:11:48-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v BENNIE STEVESON, Airman Second Class, U. S. Air Force, Appellant

9 USCMA 332, 26 CMR 112

No. 11,071

Decided June 6, 1958

*Lieutenant Colonel Ellis L. Gottlieb*and *Major Donald C. Helling*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel Robert W. Michels*and *Major Carl Goldschlager*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

The accused contends that he was denied due process of law because he was represented by a nonlawyer at the pretrial investigation held pursuant to Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 832. At the trial, however, he was represented by qualified counsel. The accused interposed no objection to the pretrial investigation and made no request for a continuance for further preparation. It is not alleged, and it nowhere appears, that the accused was prejudiced in any way by the lack of qualification of appointed counsel at the pretrial investigation. The error, therefore, is not prejudicial. United States v Mickel, 9 USCMA 324, 26 CMR 104.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is affirmed.
No. 41954.

#### Protests 228881-G, etc., of Gimbel Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel filet laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Jabara*(22 C. C. P. A. 77, T. D. 47065), Normandy laces like those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40), and Saxony laces similar to those passed upon in *Beyda*v. *United States*(T. D. 46177) were held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
A99A0039.

#### AKINTOBI et al. v. PHOENIX FIRE RESTORATION COMPANY, INC.

(513 SE2d 507)

Judge Harold R. Banke.

Phoenix Fire Restoration Company, Inc. (“Phoenix”) sued M. O. Akintobi and Dolly Akintobi (collectively “Akintobi”) for breach of *761contract. Phoenix sought damages for unpaid invoices, consequential damages, and attorney fees. In a counterclaim, Akintobi, inter alia, sought attorney fees. After the parties consented to binding arbitration, both sides requested attorney fees. The arbitrator found solely in favor of Phoenix and awarded it $72,498.76 which included $24,575.60 in attorney fees. Under OCGA § 9-9-13 (b) (4), Akintobi applied to vacate the arbitrator’s award claiming that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the issue of attorney fees. After determining that the fees issue was properly before the arbitrator, the court denied Akintobi’s motion, and subsequently confirmed the arbitration award. Held:

Akintobi’s sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in confirming the arbitration award because neither the written contract nor the parties’ arbitration agreement expressly provided for the recovery of attorney fees.

OCGA § 9-9-13 (b) sets forth the exclusive grounds upon which an arbitration award may be vacated. *Greene v. Hundley,*266 Ga. 592, 595-596 (3) (468 SE2d 350) (1996). The Georgia Arbitration Code requires a trial court to confirm an award upon timely application by a party, unless one of the statutory grounds for vacating or modifying the award is established. *Haddon v. Shaheen & Co.,*231 Ga. App. 596-597 (1) (499 SE2d 693) (1998). “[T]he power of a court to vacate an arbitration award has been *severely limited*in order not to frustrate the legislative purpose of avoiding litigation by resort to arbitration.” (Emphasis in original.) Id.

Here, nothing on the face of the arbitration award including the award of attorney fees appears to be the result of corruption, fraud, or misconduct. *Greene,*266 Ga. at 596. Nor does the award evince any partiality or overstepping by the arbitrator. *Gilbert v. Montlick,*232 Ga. App. 91, 93 (2) (499 SE2d 731) (1998). In fact, although no contract provided for attorney fees, the record demonstrates that both sides vigorously pursued such fees before the arbitrator. Not only did Akintobi fail to object to the evidence of Phoenix’s attorney fees at arbitration, Akintobi submitted its own evidence of attorney fees. In so doing, Phoenix and Akintobi implicitly agreed to arbitrate that issue. See *Hope & Assoc. v. Marvin M. Black Co.,*205 Ga. App. 561, 562 (1) (422 SE2d 918) (1992). Inasmuch as Akintobi failed to sustain its burden of showing that the arbitrator’s decision was “completely irrational” or constituted a “manifest disregard of the law,” it must be upheld. *Amerispec Franchise v. Cross,*215 Ga. App. 669, 671 (1) (452 SE2d 188) (1997); OCGA § 9-9-13 (b).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Smith and Eldridge, JJ., concur.*

*762Decided March 3, 1999

*Bowman S. Garrett, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Greenfield, Bost & Kliros, William L. Bost, Jr., Thad C. Gould, Hawkins & Parnell, Jeb T. Branham, Matthew F. Barr, Warner S. Fox,*for appellee.
#### H. W. Robinson & Co. et al. *v.*United States

No. 6388.

Entry No. 20218, etc.

Invoices dated Heywood, England, June 3, 1942, etc.

Certified June 5, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 17, 1942, etc.

(Decided September 27, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50718

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS ESPARZA PIZANA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:06-CR-1032-ALL

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jesus Esparza Pizana

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States,

523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty

provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.

Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed (Aug.

28, 2007) (No. 07-6202). The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Tank Car Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kenneth P. Fischl, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In witness whereof, I have executed this certification as of the
12thday of November, 2004.



/s/ Kenneth P. FischlKenneth P. FischlPrincipal Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 10851

RODNEY BERNARD ALLEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
SHAMELLE N. LYLES, Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility; CRAIG WATKINS, Criminal District Attorney, Dallas County, Texas; INNOCENCE PROJECT OF TEXAS; MICHAEL L. WARE, Assistant District Atto r ney , Dallas County, Texas , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CV

- 1480

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rodney Bernard Allen , federal prisoner # 28935

- 077, moves this court for leave to proceed in f orma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Federal Tort Claims Act , and Texas state law . By moving for IFP

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 9, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-10851 Document: 00512591176 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2014No. 13

- 10851

status in this court, Allen is challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor , 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997); F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 24(a). Allen has failed to ad dress the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith or the district court’s reasons for its certification decision. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202. Accordingly, his challenge to the district court’s certification decision is deemed abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Additionally, Allen has not shown that his “ appeal involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous). ” Howard v. King , 7 07 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Allen’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied , and his appeal is
dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh , 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. The district cou rt’s dismissal of Allen’s complaint, in part, for failure to
state a claim counts as a strike under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

- 88 (5th Cir. 1996). This court’s dismissal of this appeal also
counts as a strike. See id. Allen i s cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Se e § 1915(g). MOTION FOR IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

2 Case: 13-10851 Document: 00512591176 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2014
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of TransTechnology Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended December 29, 2002,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


Date: January 31, 2002               /s/ Michael J. Berthelot
      ------------------           --------------------------------------------
                                   Michael J. Berthelot, Chief Executive Officer


Date: January 31, 2002             /s/ Joseph F. Spanier
      ------------------          --------------------------------------------
                                   Joseph F. Spanier, Chief Financial Officer


                                       32
Purpose of 

Grant Program

Eligible 

Applicants

Eligible 

Projects

To fund capital projects that reduce the state of good repair backlog, improve 

performance, or expand or establish new intercity passenger rail service, 

including privately operated intercity passenger rail service if an eligible 

applicant is involved. (49 U.S.C. 24911)

• States, including the District of Columbia.

• A group of States. 

• An Interstate Compact.

• A public agency or publicly chartered authority established by 1 or more States.

• A politcal subdivision of a State.

• Amtrak, actng on its own behalf or under a cooperatve agreement with 

1 or more States.

• NEW Federally recognized Indian Tribe.

• NEW Any combinaton of the enttes above.

• A project to replace, rehabilitate, or repair infrastructure, equipment, or a 

facility used for providing intercity passenger rail service to bring such assets 

into a state of good repair.

• NEW A project to improve intercity passenger rail service performance, 

including reduced trip tmes, increased train frequencies, higher operatng 

speeds, improved reliability, expanded capacity, reduced congeston, 

electrifcaton, and other improvements, as determined by the Secretary.

• NEW A project to expand or establish new intercity passenger rail service.

• A group of related projects as described above.

• NEW The planning, environmental review, and fnal design of an eligible 

project or group of projects described above.

Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program

The Federal Railroad Administraton supports the naton’s rail network through a variety of compettve 

and directed grant programs designed to improve safety and improve the mobility of people and goods. 

The Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail Grants program provides funding for intercity 

passenger transportaton projects located on the Northeast Corridor and for projects not located on the 

Northeast Corridor and was signifcantly revised in Secton 22307 of the Bipartsan Infrastructure Law. 

Changes included broadening project eligibility to include projects to expand or establish new intercity 

passenger rail services and fund pre-constructon project planning, expanding eligible project locatons to 

include the entre intercity passenger rail network, and directng USDOT to publish a project inventory for 

Northeast Corridor projects to support long-term planning. 

Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail 

Grant Program Fact Sheet

FY22-FY26 Funding: $7.2 Billion/Year

ADVANCED APPROPRATIONS

FY22-FY26 Funding: $1.5 Billion/Year *

AUTHORIZED FUNDING (* FULLY AUTHORIZED LEVELS) 

FOR THE MOST UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION, VISIT FRA’S WEBSITE: htps://railroads.dot.gov/BIL
PUBLIC LAW 104–220—OCT. 1, 1996 110 STAT. 3023

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 677:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–800 (Comm. on the Judiciary).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:

Vol. 141 (1995): June 30, considered and passed Senate.

Vol. 142 (1996): Sept. 17, considered and passed House.

Æ

Public Law 104–220

104th Congress

An Act

To repeal a redundant venue provision, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

(a) REPEAL.—Subsection (a) of section 1392 of title 28, United

States Code, is repealed.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—Subsection (b) of section 1392

of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘(b) Any’’

and inserting ‘‘Any’’.

Approved October 1, 1996.

Oct. 1, 1996

[S. 677]
(logo)Newmark Knight Frank

 

 

225Franklin Street 

18thFloor

Boston,MA 02110

T877.526.3562

ngkf.com

 

 

**Officer'sCertificate**

 

 

Pursuantto the requirements of the applicable Servicing Agreement for the transactionslisted on Schedule I hereto, for which Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNCBank, National Association, as Master Servicer, and Berkeley Point Capital LLCd/b/a Newmark Knight Frank, as Primary Servicer, the undersigned, RonaldSteffenino, a Senior Managing Director of Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/aNewmark Knight Frank, hereby certifies subject to any limitations listed onSchedule I hereto, as of the date hereof, solely in his capacity as an officerand not in his individual capacity, as follows:

 

1.A review of the activities of the Primary Servicer during the precedingcalendar year (the "Reporting Period") and of its performance underthe Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Primary Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 31stday of January, 2019.

 

BerkeleyPoint Capital LLC d/b/a

NewmarkKnight Frank

/s/Ronald Steffenino

RonaldSteffenino

SeniorManaging Director,

Servicingand Asset Management

 

 

**Schedule I**

 

CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates; Berkeley Point Capital LLC d/b/a NewmarkKnight Frank as ***Primary Servicer***:

 

COMM 2014-CCRE 17                    COMM2014-CCRE19 

GSMS 2014-GC24                           COMM 2014-UBS4 

COMM  2015-CCRE23                    COMM 2015 CCRE27

GSMS 2015-GC30                           GSCCRE 2015-HULA

COMM 2015-LC19                          COMM2015-LC21

CFCMT 2016-C3                             CGCMT 2016-C3                                                   

CFCRE 2016-C7                              CCRESG 2016 HEAT

CCUBS 2017-C1                              CGCMT 2017-C4

UBS  2017-C5                                  BMARK2018 B3

MSCI 2018 L1                                  UBS2018 C12

UBS 2018 C14                                  UBS2018 C8

     UBS 2018 C9                                    MSCI 2018 H4
(logo) C-III | C-III AssetManagement

 

 

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE**

**C-III Asset Management LLC**

 

 

The undersigned, KevinDonahue, President of C-III Asset Management LLC (f/k/a Centerline Servicing LLC),the Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement datedas of December 1, 2015, relating to the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust2015-GC35, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-GC35 (the“Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

1.      a review of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performanceunder the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the preceding calendar year2016 (the “Reporting Period”) has been made under the undersigned’ssupervision;

 

2.     to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the SpecialServicer maintained an effective internal control system relating to itsservicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has fulfilled in allmaterial respects its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreementthroughout such Reporting Period.

 

Capitalized terms nototherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling andServicing Agreement.

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,** as of the 1st day of March, 2017, I have hereuntosigned my name.

 

 

/s/ Kevin Donahue

**Kevin Donahue,** President

C-III Asset Management LLC, a 

Delaware limited liabilitycompany

 

 

CGCMT 2015-GC35
August 8, 1939

No. 41937.

#### Protest 946984-G of Raybestos Manhattan, Inc.

C. D. 175. Application by plaintiff for rehearing denied. Brown, J., dissented.